Viswanatha Iyer, J.

1. The two petitioners are the hereditary trustees of the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor, the first petitioner being the managing trustee and the second petitioner the co-trustee. They challenge the validity of some of the provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act (Act 6 of 1971, which was preceded by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Ordinance (Ordinance No. 12) of 1971. The main attack is directed against clauses (a), (b) and (g) of S.10 and clause (b) of S 27 (2); and the attack is that these provisions offend clauses (b) and (d) of Art.26 of the Constitution. (We may point out that there are other pleas also raised in the petition, but Shri V. K. K. Menon, the counsel of the petitioners, has stated before us that the attack is confined to these clauses alone.)

2. Now, the more important provisions of the Act may be noted. S.2 is the definition section; and S.3, which we may have to consider specifically, vests the administration, control and management of the Devaswom, which is defined to mean the Temple, the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor, including its properties and endowments and the subordinate temples attached to it, in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee. The said Committee is constituted a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal; and it shall, by the said name, sue and be sued by the Administrator. S.4 provides for the composition of the Committee: the first petitioner is the Chairman, the karnavan for the time being of the second petitioner's illom, the Vice Chairman, the Administrator, an ex-officio member, the Chairman of the Guruvayoor Township Committee, if he is a person professing the Hindu religion, also an ex-officio member, the Thantri of the Temple, another ex-officio member, and a representative of the employees of the Devaswom, nominated by the Government, and not more than 11 persons professing the Hindu religion, of whom one shall be a Harijan, again nominated by the Government, the other members. S.5 deals with the term of office of the non-official members and their resignation, removal, etc.; and clause (e) of sub-section (3) of this section provides that the Government may remove a member, if, in the opinion of the Government, his presence in the Committee is prejudicial to the interests of the Devaswom. S.6 deals with the dissolution and supersession of the Committee: if, in the opinion of the Government, the Committee is not competent to perform, or makes default in performing, the duties imposed on it, etc., the Government may, after such enquiry as may be necessary, supersede the Committee by notification in the Gazette for such period not exceeding six months: there is, of course, provision for considering the explanations and objections of the Committee before issuing the notification. And when the Committee is superseded, the Government has power to appoint a person from their service and professing the Hindu religion to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee during the period of supersession.

3. Now we come to S.10, one of the sections specifically attacked by the petitioners. This section deals with the duties of the Committee; and the relevant portion of the section reads:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, it shall be the duty of the Committee

(a) subject to the custom and usage in the temple, to arrange for the proper, performance of the rites and ceremonies in the temple and the subordinate temples attached thereto in accordance with the dittam or scale of expenditure fixed for the temp/e and the subordinate temples under S.51 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951);

(b) to provide facilities for the proper performance of worship by the worshippers;

(g) to do all such things as may be incidental and conducive to the efficient management of the affairs of the Devaswom and the convenience of the worshippers".

4. S.11 imposes certa